Point taken. I just commented on this. But the situation is not analogous. And I think it insulting to blacks to draw it. Just think what the person who might say that was seeking to deprive them of. Then contrast that with my position on gays, which favors they be given ALL the rights heteros have, including the right of adoption. The only thing I wish to reserve for heteros is the institution that has been so important to societies and that is dictated, by both our history and tradition, AND Mother Nature: marriage. Do you really think that those two deserve to be compared. I don’t. Most blacks find it ridiculous, infuriating, and insulting. I tend to agree.
Thanks for the additional input, but I’m no clearer now whether you’re stupid or a liar. So I guess it’s both. What part of I support ALL rights save “marriage” is hard to understand? I guess you have this need to pump up your sense of righteousness by demonizing me. I understand you need. If I was the imbecile you are, I’d probably feel it, too. That’s what insecure imbeciles do, I guess. Am I right?
Mother Nature only dictates procreation. Not that it is linked to marriage.
Well, one of the things blacks were derived of was the ability to marry certain people (e.g., whites). Of course, eventually one such couple took it to the Supreme Court, who decided to impose interracial marriage upon the states, against the will of the majority, a decision today almost universally viewed positively. Furthermore, the black woman involved in that very case, Mildred Loving, has made no secret of her support for same-sex marriage, viewing it as analogous to her own struggle. So there is significant support for the comparison.
(A quote:
)
Fine replace interracial marriage specifically as the argument in the rephrasing of your post.
And it irks me that at times you seem willfully ignorant of the intent of people’s posts, choosing only to respond to the literal interpretation of a question, when it is not a large stretch of the intellect to see how the argument for interracial marriage can’t be dodged with a literal translation.
Again with the miscegenation laws?! I’d addressed this. As far as Mrs Loving, it’s nice to have her on your side. I wish she were on my side. But it’s a mere appeal to emotion. A nice coincidence and one person’s opinion.
You’ll notice, also, that she cites both religion and the denying of civil rights as reasons. I’ve not attempted to use religion and am for granting gays all rights, save “marriage”.
I’ll just say that I don’t think this is fair. I’m responding to many posters. I respond to what I read. If I’ve misconstrued something, people can always ask for clarification. And I’ve found that since every single word I type will be examined under a microscope, I try to be clear as to what I’m responding to. This seems to be the best course.
To be clear, I don’t give a fuck what your [magellan01] or anyone else’s opinion is of whether my passion for this cause and the choices I make in fighting the fight make me a “well-behaved” or “uppity” gay person.
I can’t control your perceptions of me or the movement in general. I care only so much as to determine how much time I spend reading your posts here on this board, and most importantly, because I think it is good practice to debate you as I will certainly be encountering many of your faulty arguments in the times to come.
Wow. I have no idea what I said in my preceding post that caused you to decide to be rude. Maybe I just don’t understand the uppity.:rolleyes:
You honestly don’t get it, do you? Your position itself is more than enough reason for us to be rude. You’re denigrating our worth as people. You’re just fine consigning us to second-class status because of semantics. We are not as important to you as a word. Think about that.
The era where we sucked up to people who were willing to throw us a bone while keeping us underfoot are OVER. Prop 8 woke up a whole lot of people to the so-called compromises. No more.
Be prepared for an increasingly militant gay rights movement. Your kind are motes in the dust of history.
So. What.
It wasn’t your preceding post, but pretty much what you’ve said today that sealed my use of the word “fuck”. Other than that, I don’t think I was rude.
And as for my use of “less-esteemed” in my paraphrase, that was from this blatantly contradictory statement:
And as your arguments are continuing to ignore the diversity and options that exist in the world of parenthood in general and in gay parenthood specifically, I’m compelled to point one more out for you to ignore.
Your arguments assume that women will not be involved in a child’s life if the child is being raised by a same sex male couple, and vice versa. Your arguments have also ignored the relevant circumstances that heterosexual families that experience where one of the two parents (and ergo the gender of that parent) are more participatory in the daily interactions with the child. Military families during times of war, for example.
Well, speaking as a Christian, I can say that the Bible makes it quite clear that God will not recognize marriages contrary to His Will.
No, I’m not talking about gay marriages; I’m not competent to judge them, as He made quite clear, and the ones I have seen seem to me no different than hetero marriages in spirit and commitment.
But Matthew 7:1-12 makes it quite clear how God does intend to judge. And if someone arrogates to himself the right to judge others, he will be judged by the same measure. So for those people who voted Yes to Proposition 8, and forced the dissolution of the marriage of others for the sake of their own beliefs in their invalidity, I can say confidently that God does not believe that they are married.
Huh? You don’t see any benefit to society in promoting an ideal? If that’s the case I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
You have been repeatedly asked to explain why promotion of your so-called ideal requires discrimination against me being written into the constitution of the state in which I reside.
Equal rights. Marriage is more than just a personal bond between two people. It entitles them to many rights and privileges under the law. It is unfair to deprive them of that because of semantics. Though the more you say about gays the more I think it’s beyond semantics for you. You think that gays are deviant, not normal, and their lives less fully human. Holding these views would make it easier for you to deny them their civil rights. Consider that.
I would like to hear what concrete harm you think will be done to society if gay marriage is legalized. Again, abstract discussions of ideals do not qualify. What material harm will come of calling gay people’s unions marriage? And does that harm justify denying law abiding citizens equal rights under the law?
Also, did you see my cite about gays being part of societies across history and around the world? It seems as if levdrakon was correct and maybe you owe him a little apology for being rude to him about it.
Heavens! God says we are not to judge? Quickly, ignore all laws! In fact, dissolve all laws! And set those who we’ve deemed guilty free so that they be judged at a later date. And cease immediately, ye pious and heathen alike, from using the power to analyze and judge that God granted you!
You know, reading nonsense like this, gives me pause to think that Der Trihs maybe not be totally nuts after all.
Can someone explain to me why same-sex parents aren’t ideal? Is this just taken as gospel or are there actual studies that support this assertion?
This is the crux of it, right, the word “marriage.”
All right. Against my better judgement Let’s assume we have it your way; civil unions will be legalized in all states of the country. Gays will have all rights fully equal to their straight brethren; the right to adopt, joint tax returns, health insurance, the works, except for the word “marriage” on their legal documents.
When they get engaged, will they call up their family and friends and shriek over the phone “Guess what! She popped the question! We’re getting civil unioned!”?
Will they have “Civil Union Invitations” that bid everyone help Jane Doe and Jenny Smith celebrate their journey into Holy Civil Unionry?
Will their brothers and sisters go to work and say to their boss “I need the weekend of June 10th off, my sister’s getting civil unioned”?
At the ceremony, will the organist play “Here Comes Participant #2”?
Of course not. They will say “We’re getting married!” “They’re getting married!” They will have wedding invitations. They will be brides and grooms. The only people who won’t use words that reflect the trappings of “marriage” are the clerks in the registar’s office. The people who know them, love them, and see them every day will call it what it is. The word “marriage” indicates a union; it is used metaphorically to describe any two things joined harmoniously, and to apply it to a same-sex couple is not some unthinkable stretch that will have people correcting themselves when they slip up when talking of their loved ones: “Yeah, they got married - oops I mean civil unioned - two years ago now.”
Time, and familiarity, will change people’s minds, and eventually change the laws. People will wonder what the fuss was about. If everybody they know calls it a marriage, and it’s legally equal to a marriage, then there won’t be seen a need for a different term.
You say you are all for full legal rights for gays who want to get “married”, and it’ll be fine as long as it isn’t actually called a “marriage.”
I say, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, eventually everyone will admit it’s a duck.
Define “discrimnate”. Do you mean it in a pejorative sense? Or in in the more benign “acknowledge a distinction” sense?